-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.
- Thread starter infrabenji
- Start date
firedragon
Veteran Member
Then you have not understood the cosmological argument. It shows by the way you started this post. "Im not sure how that gets us to god".
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Just out of curiosity, what convinced you to leave atheism?
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
By this logic, any person who has no belief in leprechauns must be able to prove that leprechauns don't exist.
So, I'll ask you to either prove leprechauns don't exist or admit you believe in leprechauns.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
No.In the book "Five Views on Apologetics", Craig argued against presuppositionalism (along with the majority of apologists). He endorses evidentialist apologetics.
But that doesn't answer my question.
Here's the argument.
P1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause (he claims this is a metaphysical principle, but it can be argued inductively -- probabilistically -- as well given our experience of cause-and-effect).
P2. The universe began to exist (he uses the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the Wall theorem and infinity paradoxes)
C. Therefore, the universe has a cause (follows from premises 1 and 2).
Conceptual analysis: since "universe" is defined by Craig as that which is spatio-temporal and material, and it began to exist, only something non-spatio-temporal and non-material could be the cause of the universe -- this is true by definition if one concedes Craig's argument. Turns out that is how the Christian God was defined by theologians for centuries: as the non-material and non-spatial creator of the physical world.
How do you respond?
I know this was not directed at me, but I'll reply anyway. Hope that you don't mind.
I take issue with the phrasing "begins to exist." It seems to me that it's just a way to get out of requiring the "cause" thing to apply to God, so it's really just defining God in a way that avoids the issue. Also, the Big Bang being the beginning of the universe is somewhat misunderstood, at least from my interpretation of it. The universe could have existed prior, but in a way that we can never observe. As such, the Big Bang is an event that marked the point where the universe became what it is now, removing any evidence for what was there before. So it may not have been the "beginning" of the universe, rather a transition into its present state.
firedragon
Veteran Member
When you say religious debate, what do you really mean? Can you explain? Is it whether God exists or not? Is it "which God"? Or is it "which book"? Or is it a structured criticism of a textual nature of a particular scripture or book? Or is it the history of occurrences during or after this so called "deliverance of the religion"?
Dont say all. Because that would definitely mean its useless. If its all, then you should start one topic at a time.
Just curious to know. Thanks in advance.
infrabenji
Active Member
Emoji's don't really hide your disdain. As an atheist I occupy the negative position. Which God would you be talking about? Your god? You must have read my credentials at the beginning of this thread. I think anyone would be offended at being called lazy. I am not static. My mind can be changed. I think it's important to engage in discussion that is thoughtfully considerate yet robust and intriguing. This a religious debates forum. Not a go find out for yourself forum. I think you're in the wrong place.The thing is, that you should (actively) convince yourself
infrabenji
Active Member
There are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity alone. Hundreds of thousands of other religions. As an atheist I assume the negative stance in a debate. It is the role of the affirmative stance to prove their claims. Will their evidence meet the burden of proof? So, in answer to your question I'll debate any topic on religion I find interesting. I prefer debates that are as, I just told another person, good natured and thought provoking. I am not static. My mind can be changed. I look to the affirmative to present the evidence for their claim. Whatever that may be. Using the best methodologies, we currently have for determining the truth value of claims, I contrast my beliefs with others. I may change some of my beliefs or the beliefs of others in the process. I may not. All I ask is that all parties including myself are intellectually honest. I hope this answers your question.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Agnostics and atheists both have two distinct definitions, a philosophical and a colloquial (I denote them by capitalizing the philosophical position).
An Atheists says "there is no god".
An atheists says "I don't believe in (your) god".
An agnostic says "I don't know if a god exists".
An Agnostics says "I don't know what a god is - and neither do you".
Note that the philosophical definitions denote positions, whereas the colloquial definitions just describe inner states.
Maybe you are already an Agnostic without knowing it?
I wouldn't want you to assume a position you don't hold or know that much about.
infrabenji
Active Member
Hi, great question. I studied world religion in college amongst other things so I've learned some of the basics from the major religions but nothing so in depth like I could learn here from current practitioners. Not to mention all the obscure religions and personal beliefs people have. I'm excited to see who's interested in having a thoughtful discourse and sharing their beliefs with me. At the moment I prefer to debate but will probably move into more general religious discussions in the future. I guess I'm a seeker in a way. The truth is paramount to me. I'll see if I can find any here, if not, at least I've had some good conversations to take with me on my journey through life. Have a great day!
rational experiences
Veteran Member
If humans say God is a theory then God does not exist.
The scientist argument I invent create.
If a theist said God created your human life then tells me how rationally he would be a man. A sexual active man. Thinking. A human. A father.
Does he say sex created my life. No science said by men God created my parents. My parents were created by human sex.
No he says the very first humans.
So you are speaking on behalf of god as a scientist theist? Yet the theory itself says in the beginning is nothing.
Where is God then.
Yes he says by theory.
Just words in correct terminology as he is a human looking back as a theist.
If I said first two parents are deceased he ignores me.
Not a correct theist.
If I said God created me then I would be a God too.
His theism said no man is God.
Father said so put self as a resource being his thesis inside machine and react machine to learn did a human man invent a human female by a machine nuclear thesis!
Yet he won't as he knows dust converts into nuclear.
What he puts inside his machine is the resource.
He said don't look back as a God earth warning.
He said the female his scientific space womb abomination thesis changed into a lot a pillar. As the female looked back. Which is secret science. Calculations reference minus...back.
As no human can turn into a body of stone.
Rationally not a human.
Different reasons why non stop human thinking owns various answers to self a human why God never existed as a motivated creator self.
Consciousness says no God as thesis God of the past a human thesis turned God into a hole.
Says no God as nothing is the first status human thesis story.
And be rational saying no God.
Other humans claiming God the deity in science said earth was the deity.
The scientist argument I invent create.
If a theist said God created your human life then tells me how rationally he would be a man. A sexual active man. Thinking. A human. A father.
Does he say sex created my life. No science said by men God created my parents. My parents were created by human sex.
No he says the very first humans.
So you are speaking on behalf of god as a scientist theist? Yet the theory itself says in the beginning is nothing.
Where is God then.
Yes he says by theory.
Just words in correct terminology as he is a human looking back as a theist.
If I said first two parents are deceased he ignores me.
Not a correct theist.
If I said God created me then I would be a God too.
His theism said no man is God.
Father said so put self as a resource being his thesis inside machine and react machine to learn did a human man invent a human female by a machine nuclear thesis!
Yet he won't as he knows dust converts into nuclear.
What he puts inside his machine is the resource.
He said don't look back as a God earth warning.
He said the female his scientific space womb abomination thesis changed into a lot a pillar. As the female looked back. Which is secret science. Calculations reference minus...back.
As no human can turn into a body of stone.
Rationally not a human.
Different reasons why non stop human thinking owns various answers to self a human why God never existed as a motivated creator self.
Consciousness says no God as thesis God of the past a human thesis turned God into a hole.
Says no God as nothing is the first status human thesis story.
And be rational saying no God.
Other humans claiming God the deity in science said earth was the deity.
infrabenji
Active Member
Read all my comments on the subject before you make a generalization. I was having a conversation with someone else and they asked me to look at it sight unseen. That was my first impression. The cosmological argument isn't difficult to understand and after being given the opportunity to review I was able to identify key issues within the premises. I identified several fallacies. I listed, defined, and assigned the errors in logic to their appropriate premises. The person taking the position of the christian apologist seemed satisfied by my findings and withdrew for one reason or another. I ask that in the future if you are going to comment on my posts that you read all of the relevant posts. If you have any questions about the ancient and worn out cosmological argument feel free to direct your questions to the nearest trash can. Thanks.
If you’re looking to debate, you aren’t looking to be convinced. But have fun!
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
infrabenji
Active Member
Care to elaborate? Where else am I supposed to go to have my ideas challenged. To hear new and potentially belief changing information. I care about what's true and aligning my model of reality as closely as possible to actual reality. How is actively engaging in thought provoking discourse on the subject of religion not looking? I am not static. If someone can present sufficient evidence for their position I will be intellectually honest and adjust my position. I've found there are so far several people like yourself that make argumentative statements for no reason. Fail to back up their claim, in this case that I am not looking to be convinced, and then run away. It looks a lot more like you're the one who's not intellectually honest or maybe you're simply not brave enough to have your beliefs scrutinized in a forum of your peers.
Debate by its nature implies one is not conversing to be convinced.
And before you rant about intellectual dishonesty, you should check yourself. I’m an atheist, dude. I don’t have religious beliefs to be scrutinized. But like I said, have fun!
Last edited:
infrabenji
Active Member
Literally a definition that took all of 2 seconds to find by typing in "debate definition". I know it, but I figured I'd give you the verbatim wording so there was no misunderstanding. Debate: To turn over in one's mind : to think about (something, such as different options) in order to decide". Exactly why I'm here. To get new ideas, think about them, and decide. But I digress. What would a law student with a bachelor's in theology, an associates in philosophy, and an associates in religion know about debating. Have fun!
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Oh, you’re a law student? That explains a lot.
EDIT: Oh, and you used the wrong definition for this situation.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
Do you want a debate because you want to be convinced that a religion is true or do you want a debate to show that religion is wrong?
Sorry I came in late on this thread. I saw it when you posted it earlier but I had to go out so I missed what people posted and I cannot catch up tonight.